Comments for The Paciello Group Blog

Comment on WCAG 2.0 parsing error bookmarklet by David Best

David Best — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:20:15 +0000

When performing user accessibility testing, I have often wondered if criteria 4.1.1 should be flagged, but have concluded like Jared that it is not really an accessibility issue. I assume it will be flagged by automated tool testing, and since it comes under the Robust category, it is “Value Added” and simply good coding. However, it should remain as a criteria check, as it will reduce manual user testing accessibility errors considerably.

Comment on Rough Guide: browsers, operating systems and screen reader support by Some links for light reading (10/2/12) | Max Design

Some links for light reading (10/2/12) | Max Design — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:05:37 +0000

[...] Rough Guide: browsers, operating systems and screen reader support [...]

Comment on Rough Guide: browsers, operating systems and screen reader support by Rough Guide: browsers, operating systems and screen reader ... | Online Accessibility | Scoop.it

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:05:02 +0000

[...] background-position: 50% 0px; background-color:#222222; background-repeat : no-repeat; } http://www.paciellogroup.com – Today, 12:04 [...]

Comment on HTML5 Accessibility Chops: title attribute use and abuse by Steve Faulkner

Steve Faulkner — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:17:33 +0000

Hi sailesh, there are 2 main scenarios where I think it is appropriate:

A textbox with a button to the right which visually identifies the text boxes purpose.
In data tables that contain inputs and the table header cells provide the visible labels

The other issue is Firefox does not expose the alt when moused over on an image but it exposes the title. An example of incorrect rendering of the title and a disregard of the alt.

unsure what you mean here?

Comment on HTML5 Accessibility Chops: title attribute use and abuse by Sailesh Panchang

Sailesh Panchang — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:47:44 +0000

Steve,
When you say, ” use it to label a form control when the same text is provided as visible text”, I suppose you mean like a form in a data table where both the row and column header need to be associated with the field, right?
Else explicit label association is the best way for visible text placed as next to / above the field to serve as labels, no?
And when fields do not have visible label text because it is pretty obvious in the context like a single search field next to a search button, a title attribute on the INPUT is handy for benefit of non-visual users. This is widely supported by AT unlike the aria-label which essentially serves the same purpose.

The other issue is Firefox does not expose the alt when moused over on an image but it exposes the title. An example of incorrect rendering of the title and a disregard of the alt.
Sailesh

Comment on WCAG 2.0 parsing error bookmarklet by Steve Faulkner

Steve Faulkner — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:30:03 +0000

Hi Jared,
I still think it’s useful to require the checking of such errors in the code.

Comment on WCAG 2.0 parsing error bookmarklet by Jared Smith

Jared Smith — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:57:28 +0000

Steve -

If a screen reader is unable to get table information or if form controls are not properly associated, these would be failures of other success criteria. My point still stands – I can think of no parsing error that BY ITSELF causes accessibility issues that are not covered elsewhere in WCAG.

Again, I’m not arguing against validation, I just don’t think it should be an accessibility conformance requirement.

Comment on WCAG 2.0 parsing error bookmarklet by Luke McGrath

Luke McGrath — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:12:20 +0000

Inspiration bit of sideways thinking Steve, will follow this with interest.

My thoughts on the parsing debate: Clean code will not harm accessibility, bad code might. Why take the risk? In addition, clean code is quicker to load and easier for search engines to read. The outcome: accessible, speedy and well ranked.

Comment on WCAG 2.0 parsing error bookmarklet by Steve Faulkner

Steve Faulkner — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:58:43 +0000

Hi Jared,
I have found the odd nesting error that has affected a screen readers ability to convey table information correctly and having multiple form controls with the same id values is definielty a potential issue, so cannot agree with you completely on this one.

Comment on WCAG 2.0 parsing error bookmarklet by Tina Holmboe

Tina Holmboe — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:51:50 +0000

First off – siteSifter does validation as part of both the WCAG 1 and 2 baselines, as well as partial validation (the “required checks” above) in a client-specific set of tests. It is somewhat heuristic the whole thing, of course, but it is quite possible. Note that this relate to HTML validation – HTML5 is a different kettle of fish.

Secondly, I’d claim that validation DOES aid accessibility, as it’ll remove such bugs as unclosed elements, or more precisely incorrectly closed ones, which can make certain things very difficult. I’m sure we’ve all run across pages that are one, gigantic, hyperlink because an A got left out somewhere … it is, of course, not a panacea.